• arthurpizza
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1161 month ago

    This is bullshit.

    Until I see an OSI approved license, it’s not open source.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      571 month ago

      I am so sick of these rubbish licensing efforts calling themselves Open Souce. Fair code is a new atrocity.

      There is no repository link. There is no open source code.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        521 month ago

        The Winamp announcement linked to in the article never says “Open source”, that’s the article writer not understanding the difference.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          121 month ago

          Tbf,

          opening up its source code to enable collaborative development

          sounds already close to open-source, though it isn’t necessarily, as the licence that is used matters.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        261 month ago

        I disagree.

        CLA gives them total ownership of the code (all contributors are surrendering their copyright), and allows them to change license at any point in time, including making it closed source.

        If you’re contributing code to a project with CLA you’re not contributing to Open Source, you’re working for a company for free.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          151 month ago

          A CLA is okay if and only if the copyright is being assigned to the Free Software Foundation or a similarly reputable nonprofit.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            Yes, thanks for pointing it out. As long as it is some organization that can’t be bought it should be fine. I didn’t included that because it makes my response more confusing.

            Essentially CLA gives the entire copyright to specific entity and that entity in case of FSF it likely could use it for fighting violations, while some startup likely intends to change license when their product gets more popular to cash out on it (for example what Hashicorp did recently before selling to IBM)

        • lemmyvore
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          A CLA in itself is not necessarily bad, but it depends greatly of what the license is and what it says about future intentions.

          There had been many instances of copyright folders using the CLA as a means to go proprietary so the community is understandably wary about it today.

          If the current license is permanent and non-revokable like one of the well-known ones (GPL or MIT to name the most) then even if they change it later the code up to that point would remain under that license and can be forked freely.

          The issue in that case is not losing the code, it’s that the copyright holder has a long term plan where they benefit from community help for a while then take the product close source to monetize it, which is regarded as a dick move.

          IMO there are benefits to any project that uses a FOSS license even if temporarily if you can fork it afterwards. And let’s not forget that you can also fork it during.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          AFAIK that’s already the deal. So the proposal is a improvement of the deal. Also don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            This is not “perfect is enemy of good” it would be if I was arguing about MIT vs GPL etc.

            By signing CLA you’re surrendering copyright to the company and this allows them do do whatever they wish with your contribution, including switching back to closed source.

            Hashicorp was able to change license of their products exactly thanks to CLA.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    691 month ago

    What’s the licence? It doesn’t sound like “open source” and sounds more like “source available”.

    • Ephera
      link
      fedilink
      281 month ago

      It annoys me, too, because there’s various open-source projects already, like QMMP and Audacious.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      171 month ago

      They just want more people being pushed to their NFT marketplace while getting free development. It’s astounding they are getting so much good press.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    251 month ago

    I went to the mall today and it felt like the early 2000s again

    Look I know it is barely on topic but that shit was so wild I had to

    • Joël de Bruijn
      link
      fedilink
      61 month ago

      Agree, also I never encountered other software so flexible in user interface. Every feature can be placed with panels everywhere to your own liking. The whole app interface is like a canvas. Took me a while to get the hang of it but after that …

      Wished other apps were this flexible.

  • Eugenia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 month ago

    The sad thing about this is that 90% of the skins available for WinAmp since then are gone. You can’t find them to download them anymore.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    121 month ago

    Now we just need open source directx and direct draw so all the visualizations work and we’re in business.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 month ago

      They just want to get profit from the purchase but they are no longer competitive.

      Looks like they are looking for suckers to contribute to their code base for free without even making it actually open source.

      IMO at this point WinAmp does not offer anything beyond name recognition and nostalgia. Isn’t qmmp essentially an open source version of WinAmp?

      • Pleb
        link
        fedilink
        41 month ago

        IMO at this point WinAmp does not offer anything beyond name recognition and nostalgia. Isn’t qmmp essentially an open source version of WinAmp?

        Even as nostalgia, I just tried out loading a winamp skin from the winamp skin museum someone linked further up with qmmp and it handles that just fine too. So I’ll be just using that going forward.

  • Owl [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 month ago

    I hope they get all the skins working, and it becomes popular on Linux.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    41 month ago

    I wonder what the aim is. Trying to get relevant again? I haven’t used Winamp in many many years. I’m a Spotify / YouTube kind of guy now. I drank the koolaid. It’s a little late and things like VLC have a pretty solid offering now, without all gotchas that this will have (such as you apparently can’t call it Winamp and will have to sign away a sacrificial child to actually get the code)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 month ago

      VLC is a video player. While it of course can play audio files, it is not intended for managing a library of them like winamp. I do agree that they’ve missed the boat though. I still buy CD’s and actually have a digital library of music that I own. As such, I never stopped using winamp. But I don’t know a single other person in real life that doesn’t just use a streaming service for their music.